College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2000 Section 5: First Amendment Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 5: First Amendment" (2000). Supreme Court Preview. 91. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/91 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview FIRST AMENDMENT In This Section: LAST TERM: Mitchell et al. v. Helms et al., No. 98-1648 The Louisiana Case:Justices Appove U.S. Financing of Relhgious Schools' Equipment Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 167 Hgh Court Oks TaxpayerAidfor Religious Schools;Jeff Plaintiffs Lose 15-Year Battle Bruce A lpert and M ark W aller ..................................................................... 170 LAST TERM: Boy Scouts ofAmerica and Monmouth Council et al v. James Dale, No. 99-699 Boy Scouts' Ban on Gay Leaders Upheld by Court; 54 Ruling Respects Group's 'Sincefity' L yle D enniston ...................................................................................... 174 The Supreme Court: The New Jersey Case; Supreme Court Backs Boy Scouts in Ban of Gaysfrvm Membership Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 177 LAST TERM: Board of Regents of the Univerity of Wisconsin System et al v. Scott HarodSouthworth et al, No. 98-1189 Justices Ok PoliticalUses of Student Fees; Supreme Court: Panel Rejects Suit Brought by Conservatives UnhappyAbout Payingfor liberalCauses David G. Savage ......................................................... 180 No Student Veto for Campus Fees Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 183 LAST TERM: Santa Fe Independent School Districtv. Jane Doe et al., No. 99-62 The Supreme Court: The Religion Issue; Student Prayers Must be Private, Court Reaffirms Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 186 School PrayerRejected; High Court Bans Student-Led Acts Joan Biskupic ........................................................... 189 164 LAST TERM: Hill v. Colorado et al., No. 98-1856 Two VictoriesforAbortion Rights: justices Uphold Colorado 'Bubble,'RejectNebraska Late-Term Ban Bill McAllister ........................................................... 191 Abortion War of Words Goes on at Denver Clinic; Protesters Continue Action at Faciliy on Vine Street Lisa Levitt Ryckman ...................................................... 194 LAST TERM: Nixon et al v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al., No. 98-963 Campaign Gzft Limits Reaffirmed; Court Upholds Power To Curb Donations Lyle Denniston .......................................................... 196 Court Sees ContributionLimits as Way to Prevent Corruption Tony Mauro ............................................................. 199 NEW CASE: Bartnicki v. Vopper, No. 99-1687; United States v. Vopper, No. 99-1728 NARRATIVE SUMMARY, The FirstAmendment v. The Right to Privacy M eredith L ugo ...................................................................................... 201 Synopsis and Question Presented ............................................ 203 GloriaBartnicki et al v. Frederick W. Vopper et al, 200 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir.) .................................................... 204 Supreme Court Roundup:Justices Agree to Review Privacy of CellularCalls Neil A. Lewis ........................................................... 216 Free Speech and Wireless Privacy Face Off Jeffrey Silva ........................................................................................... 219 NEW CASE: Legal Senices Corporationv. Velaque,, No. 99-603; United States v. Velagquez, No. 99-960 NARRATIVE SUMMARY, Limiting LegalAid M eredith Lugo ...................................................................................... 200 Synopsis and Question Presented ............................................ 222 165 Careen Vela.que( et al. v. Legal Serices Corporation, 164 F.3d 757 (2nd Cir.) .................................................... 223 High Court Will ConsiderLimits ofLegalAid to Poor Joan Biskupic ........................................................... 231 Supreme Court Roundup: Weighing Restrictions on Legal Aidfor Poor Linda G reenhouse .................................................................................. 233 NEW CASE: DonaldJames Gralike v. Rebecca McDowellCook, No. 99-929 NARRATIVE SUMMARY, The Strugglefor Term Limits Goes On David P. Primack ........................................................ 236 Synopsis and Question Presented ............................................ 238 DonaldJames Gralike v. Rebecca McDowell Cook, 191 F.3d 911 (8h Cir.) ..................................................... 239 Supreme Court to Wade Back into Term-Limits Debate with Missouri Case Tony Mauro ............................................................ 250 Supreme Court to HearMissouri Ballot Issue Case; Wording Sought on Term Limits Stances Kevin Murphy .......................................................... 252 Also This Tern .............................................................. 254 166 Last Term: Guy MITCHELL et a. V. Mary L. HELMS et al. No. 98-1648 Supreme Court of the United States Decided June 28, 2000 THE LOUISIANA CASE: JUSTICES APPROVE U.S. FINANCING OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS' EQUIPMENT The New York Times Thursday,June 29,2000 Linda Greenhouse Overturning two of its own precedents that provide ammunition for the legal argument that had limited public aid to religious schools, the as long as aid was distributed evenhandedly, it Supreme Court ruled today that a federal could not be said to be impermissibly favoring program that placed computers and other religious recipients. "instructional equipment" in parochial school "We see six potential votes for school classrooms did not violate the constitutional choice," Clint Bolick, litigation director of the separation between church and state. Institute for Justice, a leading advocacy group The 6-to-3 decision was not supported by a on the issue, said today. His count included single majority opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who voted with three who A far-reaching opinion by Justice Clarence Justice O'Connor, as well as the voted with Justice Thomas: Chief Justice Thomas that would have made "the principles William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin of neutrality and private choice" the only Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. touchstones for channeling aid to religious schools was supported by three other justices. Nonetheless, although the voucher debate was obviously in the justices' minds, that But Justice Thomas's opinion was qualified outcome remained in the realm by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's insistence in of potential, that in a concurring opinion that public aid may given Justice O'Connor's observation the case before the court today, no government supplement, but must not supplant, money that funds "ever reach the coffers of a religious a religious school could otherwise spend on its school." own programs. The Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans Nonetheless, the decision appeared likely to United for the Separation of Church and State, provide momentum for the drive to legalize the said in an interview that "in the case of use of vouchers for religious-school tuition and vouchers, the money goes directly to the 167 school's coffers" even though it first passed in Agostini v. Felton. In that decision -- which through the hands of parents. "The parents can also overturned a precedent -- the court held do nothing with the voucher except spend it for that it did not violate the Constitution for tuition," Mr. Lynn said. public schools to send teachers into parochial schools, under a federal program, to provide The Clinton administration supported the remedial classes. program that was upheld today and appealed a decision from a federal appeals court in New As these decisions indicate, the court's Orleans that declared it unconstitutional. jurisprudence on the subject of permissible Dating to 1965, the law, now known generally public aid to religious schools has been in as Chapter 2, has evolved from providing video turmoil for years. The case today, Mitchell v. filmstrips and similar material to a vehicle for Helms, No. 98-1648, was the oldest on the accomplishing the administration's goal of court's docket, having been argued on Dec. 1, wiring every classroom in the country for and the justices' failure to settle on a single Internet access. majority opinion after seven months showed that the turmoil was likely to continue. Under the program, federal money flows through public school districts, which are Reflecting on historical anti-Catholic obligated to buy the equipment and distribute sentiment in the late 1800's, Justice Thomas it, technically as loans, to all schools within the said that "hostility to aid to pervasively district's geographic boundaries -- public, sectarian schools has a shameful pedigree that private and parochial -- based on their we do not hesitate to disavow." He said that enrollment. Three taxpayers in Jefferson Parish, "nothing in the Establishment Clause requires La., brought suit in 1985 to challenge the the exclusion of pervasively sectarian schools program's application to religious schools in the from otherwise permissible